131
Probably less harshly than pro-Palestinian protesters, too.
Definitely more harshly than Just Stop Oil
Oh those pro Palestinians protesters are terrorists, how dare they suggest Israel to stop killing Arabs
Hell, the UK treats far right rioters FAR less harshly than environmentalists planning a peaceful protest!
Yup. And Tory rasism "it is not racist to have valid concerns about immigration" is perceived somehow as legitimate discourse instead being called of what it is - blatantly rasist dog whistling.
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong to think that it is only right wing racists that want strong controls on immigration.
The Unions are directly concerned as it removes a bargaining chip they have with companies over unskilled labour. The power of the union breaks down when there is basically unfettered access to larger pools of people who don't know their employment rights as they aren't from the UK.
A large cohort in the labour party might be racist ex-coal miners who are the butt of a joke in Phoenix Nights, but just as many are involved in labour relations and see unskilled immigration as an effort of suppress wages.
There is a reason that Corbyn was pro-Brexit, and its not because he hates foreigners.
The idea that the unions would legitimately oppose immigration is nonsense. Economic analysis of the actual impact of immigration has consistently shown that immigration has little-to-no negative impact on the incomes of native workers - immigrants don't undercut the wages of native workers so the unions shouldn't be worried about them.
A large part of that is because of the 'lump of labour' fallacy. Unthoughtful people assume there's a fixed number of jobs to be filled, but the reality is that immigrants don't just fill jobs but also create jobs through their own demand for goods and services. But there are other factors too like entrepreneurialism and business start ups - immigrants, as evidenced by them being part of the small subset of people who are prepared to pack up their lives and move to another country, tend to be more entrepreneurial than the general population in either their home or host countries. Some of our biggest high street names like Tesco and M&S have immigrant origins.
The small caveat to this is that immigration in recent decades has been shown to have a tiny negative impact on the incomes of the lowest paid 20% of the population (of about -0.5%) but this is dwarfed by the positive impact it has on those further up the income spectrum (e.g. +1.7% for the richest 10%). Obviously +1.7% of a very rich person's income is a lot more than -0.5% of a poor person's income. So if the unions are rational and actually want to improve the lot of the poorest in society then they should be campaigning for a lot more immigration and a very small increase in taxes on the richest to fund redistribution of this income, which will more than compensate the poorest for the fraction of a percentage point of lost income from over two decades worth of immigration.
And?
Its not entirely clear, but I think you are agreeing with me.
Just because they are wrong, doesn't mean that people can't have an opinion regarding immigration that isn't based on racism which is what I read in your comment.
The grandparent post is the typical idiot who shuts down every conversation with "but racism", which prevents any education on the matter. When you have complete fucking bellends who do that then those people who held positions that could have been reasoned with will get angrier at their perceived injustice. Good luck working with them at that point.
I was disagreeing with you perpetuating the lump of labour fallacy that one can be anti-immigrant for pro-worker reasons.
When nativists use this argument, it's usually shit-stirrers deliberately trying to pit people against each other. They rely on the fact that the average person probably hasn't taken the time to conduct a literature review of the economic studies of immigration, but might be able to be seduced by a superficially easy argument that all their ills can be blamed on some minority and drawing on some cherry-picked anecdotes.
The reality of immigration bears little relation to the skewed narrative the nativists are trying to sell. Irregular migration represents only a tiny fraction of UK immigration. Immigrants are no more likely to commit crime than natives. Immigration grows the economy and has little or no effect on jobs and wages. Immigrants are net contributors to the NHS and public services. Once you knock away all the far-right's factual lies, it's hard to find the nugget of a 'legitimate' reason why people might consider immigration to be one of the major 'problems' facing this country that doesn't start and end with xenophobia.
Okay, but now you are arguing a completely different point to the one I was making. I am not against immigration, so you don't need to convince me.
When nativists use this argument, it's usually shit-stirrers deliberately trying to pit people against each other.
I would disagree, not everyone is as well read as yourself and there will be some folks that will be already swayed by that argument in to thinking that immigration can suppress wages. If so, then there will logically be some people who have fallen for this, and legitimately believe that immigration has a negative side effect with regards to employment without it being because they have dark skin.
If you shut down the conversation as "that's what racists would say", then you prevent the entire rest of your comment from being communicated and helping them understand that they are wrong.
You spend a lot of time trying to convince me that migration is not a net bad, rather than trying to argue why its beneficial to shut down any ignorant "legitimate concerns" as "sounds like Hitler".
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong to think that it is only right wing racists that want strong controls on immigration.
Nope. Or, if you want more details, it would be fascists, nazis, racists and the rest of the far right - but that is like arguing which shit is more brown.
The Unions are directly concerned as it removes a bargaining chip they have with companies over unskilled labour
Complete rubbish.
The power of the union breaks down when there is basically unfettered access to larger pools of people
Even bigger rubbish. Have you ever heard about collective agreements?
who don't know their employment rights as they aren't from the UK
You are a patronising prick. According to you people who came from the outside don't know their rights but these in the UK do? I worked with both and it is often other way around - but then I don't wear racist lenses 🙄
There is a reason that Corbyn was pro-Brexit
Corbyn wasn't pro Brexit.
Your entire argument is built with lies and more lies.
Corbyn wasn't pro-Brexit
Your entire argument is built with lies and more lies.
Woops!
https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-lofty-neutrality/
Like them, Corbyn favored quitting the EEC in 1975, telling journalists on the eve of his election as leader 20 years later: “'I did vote and I voted ‘No.’”
And it wouldn't be a one-off. As an MP he voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union in 1993, against the Lisbon Treaty that forms the current constitutional basis of the EU in 2008, and for a referendum on British membership of the EU as far back as 2011
You must be 14, and not know any history. He was vocally anti-EU/pro-Brexit in all its forms for decades until he was leader and had enough pressure from the party that he basically said nothing.
He was never pro-EU because
Corbyn (along with myself and many others on the left) opposed it because we saw the EEC as a capitalist club
- Francis Beckett
Like them, Corbyn favored quitting the EEC in 1975
Are you a little bit slow? Corbyn may have voted "no" in 1975 but he was NOT pro Brexshit in 2016 so stop lying.
2011 wasn't long before it.
Stop lying.
He voted against the EU in all its forms, for a referendum on membership in 1978, 1993, 2008, 2011.
You are obviously too young to understand that being against the EU is a much older stance than UKIP, and enjoyed a significant support with a number of Labour MPs throughout the 80's and 90's as the EU pushes for privatisation of nationalised services.
Just because a Nazi says the sky is blue does not mean that all people who see a blue sky are Nazis.
2011 wasn't long before it.
Stop lying.
When I read posts of people like you I wish public lying with the intention to mislead the public would be a criminal offence. You wouldn't have too many opportunities to post from behind the bars.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35743994
"Speaking after a meeting of the Party of European Socialists in Brussels, he said: "The Labour Party is going to be committed to campaigning to stay in the European Union."
Now stop lying.
You did fully read that article you linked?
It states that repeatedly during the leadership contest when asked he stated that he would vote to leave.
After winning:
"Labour is clear that we should remain in the EU. But we too want to see reform," he wrote in the Financial Times.
NOT "I believe we should remain in the EU".
He has also stressed he is "not on the same side of the argument" as David Cameron, despite both leaders backing continued EU membership.
Because Labour wasn't in power. It needs that meme:
You support remain because you want unfettered access to Free Market Economics
I support remain because it ties Tory hands together on workers rights
We are not the same.
Are you really that dense? Corbyn supported remain and expressed it multiple times.
Stop lying.
Putting the Tories aside for a second, is it your logic that nobody is allowed to be concerned about immigration 🤔? Because "racist dog whistling" is a strong phrase to use to cover a very wide and complex topic.
i'm sure the far-right rioters are concerned mainly with the detailed cost-benefit analysis of how current and future immigration strategy could impact the uk's fiscal outlook, and not with anything else at all
My friend. I'm not talking about far right rioters. But thanks anyway 👍.
so you waded into a conversation about the rioters to ask an unrelated question?
cool thank you for the valuable discourse
pretending that there's a question posed by these riots about immigration is just pretending that that's the question far right rioters are asking, which is just an attempt to rehabilitate blatant racism in the eyes of an uninformed observer, and by doing it you're just being a useful idiot
pretending that there's a question posed by these riots about immigration is just pretending that that's the question far right rioters are asking, which is just an attempt to rehabilitate blatant racism in the eyes of an uninformed observer, and by doing it you're just being a useful idiot
You're assuming a strawman that doesn't exist and getting very angry about it. Not every question is an attack on your very being. Chill yourself, buddy.
so you waded into a conversation about the rioters to ask an unrelated question?
My friend, this is how conversations evolve. That's why they are threaded on this platform. Why do you need to be so angry that I'm asking a question that isn't related? Why do you care so much? If you want to join the conversation that's cool. But you seem to want to shout it down. That's pretty sad, pal.
You're assuming a strawman that doesn't exist
i'm not saying you're deliberately constructing the argument
i'm saying you're a useful idiot carrying water for the far right without realising it
OK 👌.
Immigration is benefiting the UK so no, there is no reason to be "concerned". I accept that there may be very specific situations for certain groups, but it is still benefiting the public as a whole.
Unless someone "concerned about immigration" is also concerned about too many white babies being born, they are a racist.
Oh I do agree immigration on the whole is a benefit to the UK, yes. Of course, I mean you only have to look around and see what immigrants are doing to help our public services for a start.
However I don't agree that having concerns equates to being a racist. That's a rather large leap that I don't think is fair. You should be allowed to question policies and express concerns without being shouted down as a racist. Of course, you don't have to be right in your concerns. And I'm sure a lot of these concerns are baseless. But shouldn't we be able to explain and discuss that with people without jumping to extremes?
However I don't agree that having concerns equates to being a racist.
big "i'm just asking questions" energy
this is just borderline sealioning
Mate what are you on about? Do you have something constructive to add? Or just internet memes?
Do you have something constructive to add?
👀
If organizing multiple riots across the country doesn't count as domestic extremism, what does?
especially when you consider the treatment of rhianan rudd, who was groomed by the far right, vs shamima begum.
Same in the US and it's usually because the cops are on their side.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)
UK Politics
3015 readers
67 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS